51³Ô¹ÏºÚÁÏ

Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] Why is Silicon Valley turning to the Catholic Church for guidance on the ethics of AI? What should we make of the new trend called microlooting, in which people steal small amounts from big corporations and feel justified in doing so? Why are we seeing the emergence of high IQ political attackers? And belief in the afterlife is increasing in the United States. These are the stories we'll discuss, and we'll also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.

Scott Rae: I'm your co-host, Scott Rae.

Sean McDowell: This is the Think Biblically weekly cultural update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, 51³Ô¹ÏºÚÁÏ. This first piece, Scott, you sent me is in The Atlantic, and it says, "Why Silicon Valley Is Turning to the Catholic Church." And they point out that a decade ago, in 2016, the Catholic Church invited some of the world's most prominent technologists to discuss AI ethics, and they're calling it the Minerva Dialogues, and they've been doing so for the past decade. Now, it seems that both groups have something, according to this article, that they could maybe gain from this. So big tech, for example, Silicon Valley, c- you know, the exchange could help rehabilitate their dismal reputation by signaling they're taking ethical concerns seriously. So they might just be kind of virtue signaling. And the Catholic Church has its own public image problem, draining back to, tracing back to some of the sexual abuse scandal. Maybe they could gain from being a part of this conversation. That's one way of looking at it. Well, one of the things that jumped out to me about this article is that this individual who's a part of the dialogues, he's an AI executive. He said part of his pitch to the group to continue the conversation is that Catholic leaders don't proselytize, but they ask questions. So for example, w- if one could work out the technological kinks, he thought, AI might be better judges than humans. A Catholic participant interrupted and said, "Don't we as humans have a right to be judged by humans?" I think that's really interesting. Now, part of the challenge is that the Catholic Church and technologists are coming from very different worldviews or approaches, you might say. So Silicon Valley, they're business people, so they're focused more on measurable outcomes, primarily. Growth, profit, innovation. And the Catholic Church, they're approaching this through ethics, right and wrong, and as well as moral consequences. The big concern that's driving some debate here, because there's some people that are saying that Catholics should abandon these conversations and not be a part of it because they're contributing to some of the negative effects of AI and the consequences here and should pull out entirely. One of the concerns underlying this is transhumanism, and I actually love that the article says this, Scott. It says, "By emphasizing intelligence over all else, some in Silicon Valley have come to see the body as secondary to the mind." That concerns me a lot, and these so-called transhumanists dream of doing away with the body by uploading their consciousness into a computer. So transhumanism is not just fixing the body, but it's using technology to go beyond the limitations of the human body to enhance the human body and free it from its constraints within the body. That's where this debate is going on, and there's back and forth about whether the Catholic Church should pull out. Let me read one paragraph that I want you to weigh in, because they're saying, this article says, "The Catholic theory of the case goes like this. Despite the extraordinary amount of AI discourse, the world has achieved little consensus on how to promote human flourishing in the AI age. American political leaders are rightly concerned about how to win the AI arms race with China, but not nearly enough about public thought being devoted to what kind of world the US should build if it wins." So really what they're saying is the conversation is all about beating China, technological advancement. But what kind of world do we want to build? That's the question. And the Catholic Church is arguing that we need to think ethically and ultimately theologically to answer that question well. What do you take from this?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, my first take was, where are the evangelical folks-

Sean McDowell: Me too

Scott Rae: ... In this conversation? And I'm not being critical of the Catholic contribution to this, but, you know, they started, they started this 10 years ago. You know, when AI was at best in its infancy. And I wonder where, you know, where are the folks from, you know, from our camp, from the Protestant side of things, from evangelical camp, who are contributing to this conversation directly with tech executives. Now, we have, you know, I'm aware of some of, some of our folks, some of our philosophers have been involved in some of these conversations with Silicon Valley executives, but not quite as institutionally as the Catholic Church has been. Sean, I think this is sort of a mixed bag here. I'm, I'm modestly encouraged with s- with what I think is some genuine dialogue on both sides. I think tech really does wanna listen, and I think the Church really wants to contribute to this. But as you've pointed out, I think there's, there's also a significant measure of self-interest on both sides. I think the tech folks really do wanna be seen as responsible and ethical and supporting guardrails that will invariably affect the, their profit margins and will affect their ability to win the AI race with China and with others. And I think it is trueThat are, around the world, particularly in Europe, the Catholic Church wants to be seen as relevant to this. But here's what I think the article was wise to point out, is that there are fundamental differences between the tech culture and the church. And I think this goes for our evangelical brothers and sisters, our Protestant folks, as well. The view of intrinsic human dignity and value, I think is a, is a v- a vast difference. And I think that the transhumanist element that you point to is not only transcending the body, but also transcending the mind. That's really what they're after with AI. And I think the importance of the body and embodiment, I think this is, you know, you're absolutely right, I think, to point that out. The body is something e- to be transcended. The body is what gets in the way more than what is the place where our, the capacities of our soul are actually actualized. The article, I think points out this in, I think, a significant way. It said, "If this is the true face of A- of the AI industry, a technological triumphalism that sees human thought as an inefficiency to be overcome and human distinctiveness as a myth to debunk, the differences between the church and Silicon Valley may prove irreconcilable." And I would say not may, say will surely prove irreconcilable.

Sean McDowell: Wow. Wow.

Scott Rae: Here's the other point I think that's worth, that's worth bringing out in this, is that the ethics conversation, I think has focused mostly on preventing some of the worst case scenarios. Things like mass unemployment, rogue models like we've just seen recently with Anthropic. And here's, I think, the article points it out like this, "While ignoring deeper questions about how the technology might degrade our humanity or undermine our sense of purpose, or how the technology might shape us." You know, recognizing that it already has, I think, in some really significant ways. It's reshaped how we, how we do education. And Sean, we've talked about this at length, the prospect of undermining relationships, undermining community, critical thinking, problem-solving, not to mention taking the jobs that it, that it inev- invariably will. And I think to be clear, you know, you and I both, I think, hold that AI can be a useful tool, but we're also aware of how it shapes us.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: Like all technologies, and I think in particular this one, is not neutral. And I think the tech folks have shown their hand when they realize it's, that they also realize it's not neutral, that there's a transhumanist agenda with some, if not many, of the Silicon Valley leadership. And that's, I think, something that, you know, we've r- we've really got to be careful of. And I, what I wonder about is how can we assess the impact on us while there's still time to course-correct? 'Cause, the impact, I mean, it seems to me the impact on how it shapes us is not, we may not know that entirely for another 10 to 20 years. And by that time, you know, surely the c- the cat's out of the bag, and it will be, it will be way too late to make any corrections.

Sean McDowell: What are the, additional concerns to, I think, add on to what you're saying, Scott, is that sometimes in these conversations, the dialogue and the ethics is kind of baptized in Christian language, resurrection, the Antichrist, [chuckles] and what people mean by that. And we saw this, the conversation between Ross Douthat and Peter Thiel, I don't know, six, eight months ago. It was super fascinating. On his podcast, it's worth listening to. And I don't, I've been, I don't know where, really where Peter's at spiritually. I'm not speaking to that. But a lot of the language was, I think, confusing certain cultural, artificial intelligent ideas with biblical ideas. And so we just have to have discernment that's there. I think you nailed some of the key concerns. One thing I would say to your first point about why aren't evangelicals here, well, the Catholic Church are the ones who reached out. It wasn't Silicon Valley who reached out to them. They initiated this dialogue. And, the one benefit in terms of this the Catholic Church has is there's a top-down hierarchical structure where you can basically say, "We speak for 1.4 billion people on the planet." That's going to get the attention, especially of business people who are thinking about results. But evangelicals should have thought of this ahead of time. We should have initiated this. I hope we're a part of the conversation. One of my big takeaways from this is just as Christians, we need to be, as evangelicals, we need to be in the conversation. We need to be a part of it. This morning I spoke with a former Christian, left his faith. We had coffee this morning. He just talked about how almost all of his evangelical friends abandoned him when he left his faith. And I think, why are we abandoning that conversation? Stay at the table. Now, there is a point to pull away, and the concern here is that if the Catholic Church or others are being used, and their being used contributes to something wrong, then you pull out, and that's a decision that's gonna have to be made with wisdom. But I think we should be leaning into these conversations as a whole, rather than leaning away from them.

Scott Rae: Yeah. It is, it is a fine line, I think, that the church is trying to tread here-

Sean McDowell: I agree

Scott Rae: ... Between between being co-opted and being so oppositional that they lose their place at the table.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: Uh-huh

Sean McDowell: And this AI train is coming for sure. It's already here. Let's do what we can to help people think wisely about it. All right, here's another fascinating trend. I was glad that you sent me this 'cause I've tracked some of the stories related to this new term microlooting. This is in The New York Times, and this is a longer podcast with so much here. But just a few things is, microlooting is described as a phenomenon of people stealing small things from big corporations like Whole Foods. People are taking small things, and they're feeling justified in doing so. That's what might be kind of the new trend here. So they go back and forth in this article on would you steal a Netflix password? Would you steal so- steal something physical from a store? Like, where exactly is it okay to steal? What is stealing? This is kind of a nuanced ethical debate, but I found it a- interesting that Piker, who is a part of this, Hassan Piker, was said, you know, "The government-funded anti-piracy initiatives would be like, 'Would you steal a car?' I'm like, yeah, if I could get away with it. If it was as easy as pirating intellectual property, I would do it," which I find is interesting. Now, he later says, "I'm pro stealing from big corporations because they steal quite a bit more from their own workers." And his point is that actually the cost that we pay is factored in. The lemons that you stole are factored into the bottom line. He was referring to somebody earlier who stole lemons from a grocery store. So the cost is set up knowing that a certain amount of, lemons in one case or intellectual property in another case will be stolen, and then the reason it gives them justification is that these corporations are taking so much from the little guy, and so to speak, when they use automation. Now, rather than giving the money back to people, they're bumping up their salaries into the millions, taking advantage of people. So first off, because it's already factored in, you can and maybe should just steal anyways because they're considering the cost, for one. And second, these corporations are taking advantage of us and the little guy in ways that the rich don't have to follow the rules, so we're justified in doing so, and in some ways even doing a good, moral thing. Ton more in this article, but really want your take on this trend.

Scott Rae: Sean, this is theft as justice-

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: ...

Scott Rae: That turns morality on its head.

Scott Rae: And there's an underlying view here, Sean, of profit as necessarily ill-gotten- ... Or a form of theft, and employment as oppression and stealing from employees. And there's, you could see as the article goes on, it has, it has a not so subtle Marxist undercurrent-

Sean McDowell: Yes

Scott Rae: ... That's, that's moving this. And the, you know, the author, the, one of the participants in this points out, "I'm pro stealing from big corporations because they steal from their employees." and it's the assumption that if someone accumulates wealth, there must be something necessarily immoral going on. The idea that someone could have a successful business that provides things that benefit the common good while creating wealth for the owners and the employees at the same time, there doesn't seem to be a category for that. And I think it's become this idea of, you know, microlooting as a form of social justice. It's an interesting form of utilitarian moral reasoning where the ends justify the means. But the interesting part of this, Sean, that stood out to me was the author admits that it doesn't really accomplish anything except perhaps make the person feel better.

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: And it's, it's, it's, they say it's, it's an ineffective form of protest.

Scott Rae: Now this goes back, I think this goes back to the ancient Greeks. And this is, this is Plato's Myth of Gyges, which I... The updated form of this is with the invisibility ring from The Lord of the Rings, which asks the question, why would you be moral if you could get away with it? And throughout the article, the examples that are given, they are pressed, would you do this if you could, you know... And the answer is, "Yes, if I could get away with it."

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: And that's exactly the question that Plato is pressing in The Republic, and he's pressing the question of the intrinsic value of morality. And the article points out here, I think, that it's, that there's, that there's nothing intrinsic about being moral, except in certain cases. I'll get to the inconsistency of it in just a minute. But there is a very slippery slope, that stealing with a purpose could easily become stealing for my own individual purpose. Utilitarianism could resort to ethical egoism here without much, without much gap between the two. And then the article points out it goes to murder with a purpose, and that's not just a slippery slope, Sean. That's a full sc- a full-scale headlong slide down the slope.

Sean McDowell: [laughs] For sure.

Scott Rae: Now it's also clear to me that they're not, they're not being consistent because some forms of petty theft they say are clearly wrong, like they would not do n- the dining and dashing from a restaurant. They, but stealing from the public library they wouldn't do, but stealing from the Louvre is okay. You know, the difference between that is-Befuddling to me. And as you pointed out, it's also justified by companies building that margin for theft into their profit margins, which, of course, the people who pay for that are not the companies themselves, but the customers pay for that through the higher price. They build into that profit margin through higher prices. So that seems to have, escaped some of the, some of the participants in this. The other part that's inconsistent, Sean, is the author supports doing petty theft even though he admits he would- he could and would never do it himself. Which I thought was really interesting. And I would suggest also that, you know, the same justification for theft because companies build into their profit margins, those margins, those could apply, as well, just as well to state-run stores in socialist countries. You know, we call, we call profit sustainability, and they're building that in in order to remain sustainable. Now, there's, there's so much more to this. I mean, there are, there are unexamined assumptions and

Scott Rae: un-, undocumented, assertions all over the place in this that sort of set my economics, uh-

Sean McDowell: All right

Scott Rae: ... Antenna on fire. Um-

Sean McDowell: I'm sure it did

Scott Rae: ... But I'll, I'll, hear your take on this. I've got a little bit more to add, but, uh-

Sean McDowell: Okay

Scott Rae: ... Where do you come down on this?

Sean McDowell: I'll swing back. You're right in terms of theft. It's a little bit of the Robin Hood kind of mentality going on here, and they talk about it in the article, where even, like, Aladdin stealing an apple is kind of a hero and presented in a certain fashion. Now, whether or not you can steal and take an apple when somebody is literally dying and their life is on the line, we could talk about that, but there's often this heroic person who fights against the system of abuse, and we get it on one level, but this doesn't seem akin to this and is riddled with inconsistencies. That's the problem. It's almost like it's normalizing that, and the self and the feelings become the guide of who we can steal and who we can't. Now, I had one, kinda one thought that jumped out to me, and this relates to your point about would I steal something if I could get caught or not, and this goes back to the ancient Greeks, and this... And Piker says, he... I referenced this earlier. The government-funded anti-piracy initiatives would say, "Would you steal a car?" And Piker's like, "Yeah, if I could get away with it, you... And it was easy as pirating intellectual property, I would do it." And it got me thinking about the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus talks about committing murder, and he says, "Anger, even that thought of anger in your heart is guilty." If you don't commit adultery, but you have the thought of adultery in your heart, you're guilty. Now, why? Some people think this is just crazy. The point is Jesus is moving the moral calculus from not the act alone, but from the heart state and motivation behind it. So if somebody really is like, "You know what? I want to murder that person, but the only reason I'm not going to do it is I just don't want to get caught, but I hate him that much." Now, of course, I didn't actually murder the person, but is my moral state really any better than the person who carries it out, where the only thing keeping me from doing it is my fear of getting caught and the consequences? Same with adultery. So I think that's missing from this component, that somebody just decides, and really all he's being held back from is if he gets caught or not. We need to bring this back to Jesus' ethic and say, "What does that tell me about my heart? What does that tell me about my moral state?" That's a big question that jumped out to me. The other one I thought was interesting is kinda what's behind this, is, again, in this interview, it's somebody else named Spiegelman talks about how Jeff Bezos has so much money. He's a billionaire. "So why should I have to pay for organic avocados?" It really sounds to me like a lot behind this is the sin of envy. It's just not right. I deserve that. And there seems to be a strong sense of envy behind it, that the line between how much is this really driven by justice, which is kinda how it's portrayed in the Robin Hood narrative, and just enviousness that, envy that other people have more, is a really fine line. What other thoughts do you have?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, here's what I would suggest. Envy and covetousness is to theft as lust is to adultery.

Scott Rae: Because both the actions reveal what's inside the heart. I think you're absolutely right that envy and covetousness is at the root of this, and that's why I think in biblical times, when people really f- they just didn't have a system to advance themselves in terms of their socioeconomic standing, envy and covetousness was the o- about the, was the big vice. Not greed, but it was envy. And the, all you could do is look up at the person above you, and now this is just, the theft here is just putting some hands and feet on envy on a broader scale. Now, some of it may be more ideologically driven.

Sean McDowell: Sure.

Scott Rae: I get that. Um-But I think where this is hitting home, I think, is with the phenomena of inequality, and we hear a lot about the 1%. And I think, globally speaking,

Scott Rae: my guess is almost everyone who is engaging in this petty theft in the United States is part of the 1% globally. Even though maybe not in the 1% in this country.

Scott Rae: And I think, just to be clear about this too, the 1% do control a good bit of the wealth in the country. They also create the vast majority of the jobs.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: And they pay roughly 40% of the taxes. The 1% pay 40% of our taxes, and the bottom 50% pay virtually none of the taxes. Now, they pay some, but not even close to what the 1% pay. And so I w- I wanna be careful that we don't, we don't see inequality as the boogeyman that it's made out to be, because the issue is not that some people have more than others. The issue is that some people who are at the bottom don't have enough. And I think that is the issue, and so I don't, I don't think we ought to mistake inequality for poverty and aim at the wrong target when we fight inequality. So one other thing, I-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... I thought, you know, they're lamenting toward the end of the article that most, you know, most people who,

Scott Rae: you know, who have, you know, have ideological issues with, you know, the economic system, they don't, they just don't have time to go out and protest. And the reason for that is because they are too busy making a living and raising families and trying to pass on things to the next generation. And so if, you know, if this kind of petty theft becomes a means of protest, I don't think it will accomplish much- ... And I think it does turn our moral compass entirely upside down.

Sean McDowell: That's a good way, good way to think about it. Great ethics. I can see why this article charged you up, and it's, you know-

Scott Rae: Oh, it really, it really, it got my, it got me rolling.

Sean McDowell: [laughs] I could tell. I could see it on your face. But it did, you know, when it's talking about would you steal lemons? Would you steal from a grocery store? Would you dine and dash? Would you steal a Netflix password? Would you take an article without a paywall? Like, that level, I think all of us can easily slip into justifying some kind of stealing and not others, and reading this made me go, "Gosh, am I being consistent in my own life here?" Because it's easy to get upset at them, but the Bible, of course, talks about look at the log in front of your own eye before you look at the speck in somebody else's. And so it would be an interesting, examination, I don't know if we could ever do it, if somebody could do, like, a test and have Christians and our ethical systems, are we being more consistent to our ethics than those who are not? I don't know what it would show, but I think all of us listening need to look in the mirror and say, "Okay, am I prone to justify a certain kind of theft because I'm upset because I don't like something?" It was actually my English professor at Biola when I was a freshman, so this is, like, '94, '95, and she said, "The justification of sin is just as bad as the original sin." And I thought, "She's onto something there," because we can so easily justify everything, and this article is full of justifications, and there's a part of me that wants to go, "Yes, this is unfair. That's unjust." But, can we rightly make those assessments? That's where I think, as you pointed out, this article falls short.

Scott Rae: Yeah. The heart is deceitfully wicked- ... Among all else, and we s- we are part- human beings are particularly skilled at the art of self-deception.

Sean McDowell: Yeah, this story's... I mean, all these stories are interesting to me, Scott, but this one blew me away when I saw it in The Wall Street Journal, and it's a trend I had kind of noticed, but the way it was pieced together brought it to my attention. The title is The Emergence of the High-IQ Political Attacker. So an Ivy League grad, an aspiring engineer who scored 1530 on his SATs, a 4.0 high school student with prestigious college scholarships, and now, referring to the most recent assassination attempt, a Caltech grad. There's... America has growing rogue gallery of high-profile alleged violent attackers that's noticeable for, notable for one glaring reason. There's been a shift in recent decades, towards young men who have excelled in academics at times at the highest levels. So we saw this with Luigi Mangione, the accused UnitedHealthcare CEO killer, to Cole Allen, the 31-year-old accused of attempted to assassinate President Trump at the media gala this Saturday, this past Saturday. They're confounding the typical profile, it says, of assailants. And so this FBI profiler says, "We're seeing a new breed of individual now who could have gone on to become president of a university or run a business, and yet they felt like this was their calling." And they say we're kind of seeing an evolution here. Now, according to this FBI analyst, the mass shooters who terrorized America over the past three decades have typically been suicidal young men who struggled to succeed in academics, work, or love.They were often motivated by a desire for infamy. Now, before I go on any further, these are not mass shootings that are taking place. That could be a different profile here, but that's the typical profile of a mass shooter. They do say, and I guess I take their word for it, that on average, criminals have a lower IQ than Americans as a whole from surveys of prison and jail populations. Okay, that's interesting. You know, and then even others here that weren't mentioned, like alleged assailants who were at the top of their high school class, including Tyler Roberts- Robinson, charged with assassinating Charlie Kirk. Thomas Crooks, killed by a sniper. He's the one who, attempted to assassinate Trump. So there's kind of this pattern that's emerging, and they ask why in this article. They see, they say maybe because there's a rise in left-wing extremist attacks. Maybe there's more anti-government and anti-corporate sentiment among young people, which would be related to the article we just studied or we talked about. But instead of microleading, let's go assassinate. That's what they're arguing. One forensic psychologist says intelligence alone doesn't make young men immune from being heavily influenced by online echo chambers. What do you make of this trend, if you even consider it a genuine trend?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I think there's nothing new here. And I would say so much for education alone producing character and morality. You know, Theodore Roosevelt was well known for saying that, "A man who's never gone to school may steal from a freight car, but if he, if he has an education, he may steal the whole railroad."

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: And he put it, he put it like this, "To educate a man in the mind but not in morals is to create a menace to society." And Sean, my seminary mentor had a similar sentiment where he said, "Education only makes someone a smarter sinner."

Scott Rae: Unless there's something, unless there's an inner transformation that's the result of the Holy Spirit. And I think the, you know, the original person in this, you know, who was a high IQ extremist was a Harvard educated professor 30 years ago who was sending, you know, mail bombs to people. You know, we called him the Unabomber.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: And I think you're, you're onto something here, that what's different is the online echo chamber that's available today that allows, not only allows grievances to be expressed, but allows them to fester and to grow and to find like-minded folks who will encourage people to push the envelope on addressing their grievances. You know, I also, I think what's different, the violence that's pointed out here I think is more ideologically driven. You know, I'm thinking about the United Healthcare CEO who was murdered-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... On the streets of New York a year or so ago.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: That was a highly educated person. And the person who, not too long ago was crusading against AI by throwing a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman's home. A very similar type of thing. Now, what's not clear to me, Sean, is that whether there are mental health issues like with school shooters, though I think not to the same degree, to what degree these are strictly ideologically driven by well-educated, rational people who feel like that resort to violence is the only way that they can spark change. So I don't, I don't know the answer to that. That'd be, that'd be the, an interesting thing to pursue a little bit further. But I think the big takeaway here is that obviously education alone does not produce character and morality. And I think especially with so many secular universities today basically having abandoned the pro- the prog- the prospect of any type of moral formation of students. This is why, in my view, this is what makes Christian colleges and universities unique on the landscape today, is because we have, you know, our goal, our project with under- our undergrad students is their spiritual and moral formation.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: And when we don't s- we don't see those two as any different. And you, I think we would say you are, if you are not acting in a way that's consistent with Christian morality, it's hard to say that you are being spiritually formed at the same time.

Sean McDowell: I love that you went this direction. The first point that I wrote down is that intelligence does not equal or cultivate morality. [laughs] There's not a connection between being more intelligent and being more moral. In fact, we all saw with some of the... And the, and the same is true, there's so many connections that we assume in our culture. Like, people think more intelligence might make somebody happier. It was Ernest Hemingway who said, "Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing that I know."

Scott Rae: [laughs]

Sean McDowell: And on the flip side, some people think, like, poverty is what drives criminal activity. It makes people immoral. A challenge to that, of course, was that the vast majority [laughs] of people economically poor do not do things like that, and then the 9/11 attackers were not poor. There was some ideology that was going on. So we have to be careful with these underlying assumptions that we have. Now, the other one that I drew out of this is I said not only does intelligence not create character-But it also is very different from wisdom. Intelligence is not the same thing from, as being wise. So just because somebody is smart with a high IQ doesn't mean they're any less of a fool in how they live their lives and the decisions that they make. So knowledge has to do with having information and knowing certain things. Wisdom is the artful use of knowledge in a way we would say in a wise fashion, and just because somebody has intelligence doesn't mean they're going to be wiser. It just doesn't follow, hence we need character. A verse that I sent this out on an X yesterday. I was trying to think about what verses are, like, s- particularly relevant for today, and I've been studying Isaiah, and it jumped out to me. Isaiah 8:12 says, "Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy." And I thought, "Are you kidding me?" Of course, they're talking about judgment on the nation of Israel and Babylon and all sorts of stuff going on in Isaiah, but we are naturally prone to conspiracy. The best I can do with why there's more phenomena of high IQ killers is what you said, that the amount of chat rooms, the information that's online, that's the factor that's changed with social media, and we're seeing it play out now. Some of the other explanations don't add up to me, and there's probably not one single explanation, but this online component, along with artificial intelligence and false information and conspiracy theories, are kind of arising at the same time we're seeing this. And quite amazingly, a lot of intelligent people are falling for it. That's my best sense.

Scott Rae: That's

Sean McDowell: Anything else in this article-

Scott Rae: No, that's, that's-

Sean McDowell: Do you agree with that?

Scott Rae: That's a great... I do. And the one thing just, I think, to amplify your point from Isaiah is that throughout the Proverbs and the wisdom literature, wisdom is specifically linked to moral character.

Scott Rae: And it's, it's not just, it's not just wisdom as prudence, but it's the application of knowledge, particularly as it relates to the moral decisions that people have to make. And so the i- the idea that you could be a wise person and be an im- be immoral at the same time, we would call that person shrewd but not necessarily wise.

Sean McDowell: Good distinction. Yeah, good stuff. All right. Well, let's shift to a little bit more of a positive note here and see what you make of this. This is from Ryan Burge, who, he does some of the best demographical work on religion in America. So we come back, and we'll talk about it when we see trends. And this piece that came out on April 17th is, belief in an afterlife is increasing in the United States. Well, here's a few things they point out. The first data collection, 1973, roughly 76% of people believed in something beyond this life. By 1990, that jumped up to 86%. At 2022 or now into 2024, it's 82%. So over 25 years, a 4% increase. Over the last roughly 25 years, a 2% increase. So it's not a massive jump, but it's also not insignificant, for basically three out of four to more than four out of five believe in an afterlife. Now, some of the things that did jump out is there aren't many differences whether somebody is educated or not, which is really interesting [chuckles] in light of our previous article.

Scott Rae: Right.

Sean McDowell: Education doesn't decrease or increase whether or not somebody believes in the afterlife. I found that fascinating. They said people born in the 1980s are just as likely to believe in life after death as people 30 or 40 years earlier. So we're not seeing a massive increase because the population is aging. This seems to cross demographics. The nuns, I... Amazingly, some would say, "Well, what about we have this increase in the nuns? How does this work?" And they say the group of nuns, which we've seen grow since the '90s, actually believe more now than nuns of the 1970s, [chuckles] which is just fascinating on so many levels. They did say men were more likely to say there's no afterlife compared to women, and political liberals are more skeptical of life after death than moderates or conservatives. So there are a few demographical differences, but as a whole, we've seen an increase and a shift over 50 years towards more belief in the afterlife. What do you make of this? Does this surprise you?

Scott Rae: A bit. The, the fact that it's such a durable belief, you know, controlled for all the variables, consis- basically consistent through time and through age groups, at least for the last 50 years or so. My... Sean, my question is: what does this, what does this actually tell us? And how do a- how do we account for what I think is a r- a h- basically a high level of belief in an afterlife almost regardless of religious affiliation? Now, that's a l- that's a bit of an overstatement. But, d- you know, I wonder, does this tell us that Christian faith is true since the afterlife in the scriptures is directly connected to the resurrection of Jesus? I'd say to that pr- not necessarily. Does it tell us that people believe there's more to reality than just the material world?Perhaps. I think that's, maybe a more likely possibility. I think the thing that I think is highly likely is that it reflects a hope that such an afterlife really does exist.

Scott Rae: And but here's the interesting thing, Sean, the figures that Ryan Burge points out say that there's more to this than what he calls afterlife insurance. Now, what I wonder is if there's an intuitive sense that there's more to the world than what we can measure with our senses.

Scott Rae: And I wonder if this is just, is a commentary on what seems to be a fairly widespread acceptance of philosophical naturalism or what we would call materialism, that I wonder if it's parallel to the moral sense that we've described before, that the law is written on our hearts from Romans 2:14. And just like we have a moral intuition, we also have a transcendence intuition that there's just more out there than we might think. Now, what form that could take, I mean, Lord only knows. But I think, I think this m- this is evidence of an intuition that there is more to reality than just the material stuff that we can measure and sort of, and understand with our five senses.

Sean McDowell: Totally agree. Now I want to circle back and ask why would it increase? Because I think the points you made are somewhat timeless, that we know there's an afterlife, eternity's written on our hearts. We know, that we have a self that stays the same even when our bodies change. I have a few thoughts on this. I don't know that we could perfectly know why this 6% shift, but I suspect a few things are a piece of it. One, I actually wonder if the study of near-death experiences and afterlife apologetics and phenomena plays a role in this. It was in the 1970s that Raymond Moody wrote his first book on near-death experiences, and now we have movies. Now, I mean, I've done a ton of YouTube interviews on this. There's just more conversation about this and awareness that did not exist in the '70s, when this study first began. I think that's a piece of it. There's a lot of people telling their stories. There's... So I, that, I think there's even increased awareness of miracle accounts that people are talking about that make us wonder if there's a supernatural. I also think there's a growth in the case we've made against naturalism, and I sent out a, an X to ask people yesterday. I said, "Why is the share of those who believe in the afterlife increasing?" And got a comment from a pastor by the name of Josh Howerton, who has a wonderful podcast. If you enjoy Think Biblically, I think you'd really enjoy his podcast called Live Free. And he said, "The death of new atheism and the core re- core-related advance of scientific awareness that increasingly makes it implausible for a normal person to believe there's not a creator." And this has really taken off since kind of the '70s. We've become aware that the universe had a beginning, that it was fine-tuned, the complexity of the origin of life. I think that contributes somewhat to it. I think maybe also that in our age, there's definitely been an increase of just awareness of our own mortality. There's a fear, there's a darkness that has kind of increased, almost a reality of evil that people talk about. I mean, not only seeing somebody like Charlie Kirk assassinated, but people celebrating that, people celebrating that Luigi, Mangione kills the UnitedHealthcare CEO. Yes, some people celebrate that, but I also think there's some people that just say, "Wait a minute, that's evil. And if there's evil, is there a God? Is there an afterlife?" So I think these factors contribute some to it, if I had to guess. Do you agree with that? What, what's your take on maybe why there's more now than 50 years ago?

Scott Rae: Well, I do, and it's, you know, it's not a dramatic increase, as you mentioned.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: But what is a dramatic increase is particularly the, when you s- when you talk about the instance of miracles, where we really see this is in the developing world.

Sean McDowell: It's true.

Scott Rae: And where the, where the gospel is progressing in sub-Sahara Africa, in the Middle East, you know, the supernatural is showing up all over the place and is well documented and I think indisputable, as to that's what it is. So I think that's a part of it that had, that I think you have to factor in as well.

Sean McDowell: I think that's right. There really was the death of God movement, that's emerged in the '60s, a decade before this study started. And then around that time, we see this study in philosophy, in apologetics, in the historical Jesus, near-death experiences, a lot of awareness making this case that I think is a piece of this increase. But I'd love to get more data-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... To really figure out why.

Scott Rae: No, and I, and I think, Sean, I think the death of God movement, I think, actually died itself before it even got to adolescence.

Sean McDowell: [laughs] That's probably true.

Scott Rae: So, you know, and in large part, I think due to the philosophical contributions of some of our good friends.

Sean McDowell: That's right. Well said. All right, well, let's take some questions. We've got some good ones here. This one says, "Hey, guys. I've enjoyed the podcast almost since the beginning." That's cool. "I appreciate both your insights, but my question is more personal than theological."You both are prolific writers. How do you structure your day, week to allow for the deep work of writing? I've wanted to ask you this, Scott, [laughs] personally, so how do you do it?

Scott Rae: Well, you're, you're, you're pretty prolific yourself, too. And you've got, you've got a lot on your plate, too. Here, I've got a couple things that I try to do to do this well. I've had to learn to write in shorter stretches. As opposed to requiring long blocks of time. I don't get long blocks of time unless I'm on sabbatical. And I hadn't has, as you know, I hadn't had a sabbatical for s- for some time. But those days are changing, thankfully. But I think the other thing that helps me structure it is knowing exactly what I need to write in a specific stretch of time. And so I give myself, I've got self-imposed deadlines that I give, and usually if I'm doing a book project, it's a chapter a month, is what I'm trying to get accomplished. And so if I, if I know that I've got to do this section, this section, this section, and I know where it's going, then just writing it up is not as challenging. So any research and documentation, I try to do beforehand, and so when it actually comes to writing, I'm ready to sit down and really make progress.

Sean McDowell: That's great. That makes a lot of sense. Two, two things come to my mind. Number one is I just pick writing things that I'm excited about and I enjoy. I get opportunities sometimes, and I think, "You know what? I just am not super motivated to do this." Then it's gonna be painful to write it, no matter how disciplined I am. So some of it is like in jury selection before it even [laughs] goes on trial. Pick something that I wanna write. And second, I will take my calendar, and I'll just block off times. I'll just block off two hours here. Occasionally, I might look at the week and go, "You know what? I have three or four hours here," and I block it off, and I don't let anything get into that schedule. Sometimes early mornings, whatever. But that helps me get stuff done by just refusing to allow other stuff to creep into it, or I'll end up not getting anything done.

Scott Rae: Yeah. Whenever I'm writing, I put my phone in another room in the house.

Sean McDowell: There you go. That's smart. All right, this next one says, "I'm concerned about your take in the Colorado Catholic Preschool case. They were denied funding 'cause they chose to exclude children of LGBTQ families, an exclusion you defended. My concern is we are highlighting an issue 'cause it is a hot topic in the church and culture, but what if the parents had previously aborted a child? Should they be excluded? What if they're divorced and remarried for reasons other than infidelity? Are they adulterers? Should we search for the parents for use of porn and exclude based upon this? This all seems far different than the case the baker referred to. I suggest we show grace for children who have no choice or say in their parents or their beliefs or practices." What's your take, Scott?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I admit to being somewhat sympathetic to the kids who are being excluded-

Sean McDowell: Me too

Scott Rae: ... Through no fault of their own. But it's not like there are no other preschool options available for them. So I would still be very supportive of the preschool's right to live into their own convictions. And I think there's a difference between, LGBTQ families and some of the other examples that the question cited about abortion or infidelity or, use of porn, because the LGBTQ is part of their identity. It's part, it's part of, it's something really fundamental to who the couple is, and this is, I think this is the reason that it has such political implications, too, that none of these other things have. And of course, if we're gonna search the parents for use of porn, I would suggest, you know, you might wanna try to figure out a way to do that without violating privacy laws-

Sean McDowell: [laughs] Right

Scott Rae: ... Or hacking into their computers, from afar. But I, you know, I'm sympathetic to the kids here. And if this, if this were the only preschool option for them, you know, for, you know, for, I don't know, 100 miles around, I might think a little differently, but it's not like there aren't other options for the kids.

Sean McDowell: I have that sympathy as well, but I'm not upset at the school. I'm actually upset at the parents for intentionally denying the kids a mom or a dad. I think kids have a right to a mom and a dad, and so that's where my frustration comes from, c- not primarily to the school. Now, I also agree that there are some differences here, and one of the differences is how much duty do we have to go find where somebody is living in a way inconsistent with the moral principles of the school, and somebody who's looking at pornography, how would I know that, for one, and somebody living in a same-sex relationship where it's public, and it clearly would violate the norms that this, you know, church or school has decided on. Those are very different things. It also says a couple who had, aborted a child. I'm sure we have a number of listeners who've had abortions, and they need to know God absolutely unreservedly forgives them and restores them. That, that's not the unforgivable sin. But that might be very different than somebody who says, "Hey, I am pro-abortion, and I'm gonna keep having abortions, and I'm gonna make it known, and I'd like to come to your school." I'd be like, "Now we're gonna have an issue here." So if anything, this is a call for sympathy for a child. It's a recognition that we need to be consistent.So if we're just calling out this issue, but not any other issues, then there probably is some merit to the side of hypocrisy for those who are picking out this sin and not others. So if anything, let's be consistent. It doesn't mean we're wrong in our position to defend the school's right to do so.

Scott Rae: Hear, hear.

Sean McDowell: Last question. "Hey there. I'm a regular listener to the podcast and have a speculative question. Even though we know that AI models and chatbots are not humans or living beings, do you think that people start to advocate for AI rights in the future?" What's your take on this one, Scott?

Scott Rae: Well, well, Sean, there are some legal scholars doing precisely that.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: And the courts to this point have not recognized the personhood and the corresponding rights of these chatbots. The emphasis, I think, is, so far has been on protecting children and teenagers from the mental health issues from the overuse of these things. That's, I mean, that's, those are the guardrails that have to go up now.

Scott Rae: And h- I mean, who knows where this is gonna go? And there are scholars that are proposing this. I don't think it's a m- it's not a, it's not a large number, and the courts have not recognized it in any sense. But, you know, five years from now, I don't know. It- ... They could re- it could be recognized. I hope not, because I think it, I think the presumption here that this listener makes, that they're not humans, they're not living beings, is absolutely right. And I don't think there's any, there's no, there's no reason to recognize, rights for, you know, AI creations.

Sean McDowell: We've seen, like Wesley Smith, who writes with Discovery, talks about how rights of, say, rivers or rights of, say, mountains, which is interesting. Now, there's a difference between saying we're just gonna act as if something has rights to protect it and actually attribute something that's not living like a river with rights. And so we've seen this happen in other realms, and given that AI is even closer in the way it seems to act and seems to think and seems to emote, I'd be shocked if this didn't become a bigger conversation, especially as they get inserted into robots. So yes, I think this is coming. It's only a matter of time. And to bring this full circle, this is why we Christians, and evangelicals in particular, need to be a part of this conversation. We need to weigh into it as the Catholic Church has done with Silicon Valley. All right. Good stuff, Scott. Enjoyed it. Always fun, and looking forward to next week. This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, 51³Ô¹ÏºÚÁÏ, where both Scott and I teach. We have master's programs online and in person in theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation, so much more. To submit your comments or ask questions, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. We'd be honored and grateful if you'd take a minute and give us a rating on your podcast app and consider sharing this episode with a friend. Thanks so much for listening, and we'll see you Tuesday when we interview Dr. JP Foster, who's a professor and a pastor, about his new fascinating book, The Gospel and My Black Skin. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything.

Sean McDowell: [outro music]